Last week, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee “suggested” that Israel would have a legitimate claim to a good part of the Middle East because of the Bible’s promise to the Israelites to rule “from the Euphrates [Iraq] to the Big Sea [presumably the Mediterranean]”. The Arab outcry was immediate. Whatever one thinks of such a claim, a very interesting and highly fraught political question does arise: How far back in history may a country lay claim to territory that it lost in the near or distant past?

Interestingly, there is no official “expiration date” on territorial claims in international law. Why? Because it would open a Pandora’s Box of claims and counter-claims – especially against some of the world’s Great (and Middle) Powers, Israel and other Arab states among them. However, a generally accepted doctrine is called “intertemporal law”: the legality of an act – including acquiring territory – should be judged based on laws from the time it occurred, and not by contemporary standards. That means “history is now.”

During most of humanity’s past, conquest created legal title: if you won the war and held the land, the world eventually treated it as yours. Such a “right of conquest” formed the basis of borders across Europe, the Middle East, the Americas, and beyond. This began to change after World Wars 1 & 2, with the UN Charter emphasizing two ideas: 1- The territorial integrity of existing states must be respected; 2- Acquisition of territory by force is not legally valid, even if you “win.” But again, these principles are prospective (present and future), not retrospective (what happened in the past).

This seemingly worthy approach underlies the central tension of contemporary international relations. Look at almost every border on the world map and you’ll find force, empire, and unequal........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)